|
A free nation, not to mention free
markets, depend on a free, independent press. How can voters make wise
decisions—or investors allocate assets prudently—if the news they rely
on is manipulated? Reporters struggle to inform their audiences,
depending on sources for information while trying to avoid being played
by those same sources. Day after day, countless unsung reporters succeed
at this challenge, but failures occur.
Perhaps the greatest recent
embarrassment for free journalism was the Pentagon's "embedding" program
in the early days of the Iraq invasion. With few exceptions, reporters
willingly embedded with US military units. They played soldier, donning
fatigues and digging fox holes to sleep in while breathlessly reporting
the Bush Administration's propaganda on the evening news.
Less spectacular, but equally
disturbing, is the ease with which the financial press is manipulated
into promoting questionable, risky or over-priced financial products.
Readers of this blog know that the hedge fund industry is little more
than a trillion dollar bait-and-switch scheme. Sadly, readers of the
Wall Street Journal are not so well informed. In today's Heard on the
Street column (perhaps it should be called Played on the Street)
journalist Gregory Zuckerman breathlessly tells readers that hedge
funds, with a "few notable exceptions" are “storming back” from the
Summer's sub-prime meltdown. His column earnestly recounts how "some
investors questioned whether juicy opportunities were a thing of the
past," but hold on—Alleluia!—hedge funds are "pulling in more money than
ever from investors."
Before all the pension plan, endowment
and foundation trustees who read Zuckerman's column race to hop on the
newly revitalized hedge fund gravy train, I would like to ask a few
questions about how carefully Zuckerman checked his facts.
1. Gregory, when you claim hedge funds
"have seen $164 billion in new asset flows this year, already a record
for a full year," you cite Hedge Fund Research, Inc (HFR) as your
source. Did you double-check this claim with a less biased source? I
doubt it, since I don't know of any less biased sources for such
information. It is not like these numbers are compiled by one of the
Federal Reserve Banks or something. The thousands of independent hedge
funds are under no obligation to report their cash inflows to anyone, so
they are free to reveal the information to only those industry organs
that are most committed to hyping the industry. Other questions I have
about the $164 billion number are whether it represents net inflows
(inflows minus outflows) or just gross inflows? Does the number include
investments hedge funds received from investors who pulled the money
from other, troubled hedge funds? If so, what precautions were taken to
exclude such investments? It is not as if hedge funds ask investors
where the money came from, so how would they know? If yes, and if the
number reflects gross inflows, then the number would be inflated by
investors switching investments from one hedge fund to another. Wouldn't
it? Does the number include investments the hedge funds receive from
funds of funds? Similar issues apply. Also, did HFR calculate the number
by surveying every single hedge fund in the world (both domestic and
overseas), or did they project the number from a survey of just a few
(perhaps hand-picked) hedge funds? In a nutshell, I am asking, Gregory,
just how manipulated is this $164 billion number?
2. When you take about investors
questioning if "juicy opportunities" were a thing of the past, did you
ever stop to check if those purported juicy opportunities ever existed
in the first place? I know that hedge fund marketing (in all its
numerous guises, including planted newspaper stories) promotes the
notion that hedge funds brilliantly produce outsized returns with low
risk. I also know the industry compiles various hedge fund indexes that
seem to substantiate those claims, but those indexes are compiled in
ways that are known to be flawed. For example, you cite HFR in claiming
hedge funds overall have returned 10.5% this year, easily outstripping
the S&P 500, which has returned just 4%. Did you check to see if that
10.5% number included the staggering losses suffered by the two funds
Bear Stearns had to shut down this Summer? What about the $1.5 billion
Sowood Capital lost before shutting down? How about all the other hedge
funds that shut down following staggering losses on sub-prime debt or
quantitative strategies? How many of their death spires were included in
the HFR Index you cite? I doubt any were, since it is entirely voluntary
for hedge funds to report their results to HFR. Hedge funds that are
outperforming the market are happy to report their success to HFR. Hedge
funds that are hemorrhaging investors' money ... well, they are likely
too busy struggling with other priorities to report their dismal
numbers. In summary, claims that hedge funds, as a class, consistently
outperform the overall market (or otherwise offer "juicy opportunities")
are unsubstantiated. The fact that hedge funds are under no obligation
to consistently report their performance to anyone makes substantiating
such claims difficult or impossible. If the hedge fund industry wanted
to fix this problem, they could do so, but they choose not to. Perhaps,
Gregory, you might refrain from speaking of the hedge fund industry's
"juicy opportunities" as if they were fact. You might speak instead of
their "claimed juicy opportunities" or "purported juicy opportunities."
Journalistic integrity would seem to require as much.
3. I note that your column reports
some bad news for hedge funds amidst all the good news. Interestingly,
all the good news seems to originate with the hedge fund industry itself
(HFR, hedge fund managers and fund of fund managers) while you cite
actual investors as your source for most of the bad news. For example,
you note that quantitative funds are still struggling, but you cite the
sorry investors in those funds as your source for this information. I am
wondering if you might want to dig a little deeper—or maybe a lot
deeper. How much else does the hedge fund industry choose not to tell us
that a more systematic survey of actual investors might? There may be a
story here.
4. Finally, are you familiar with the
oldest trick in the investment management industry? You launch ten
funds, see which ones perform best in the first year; promote those
funds; and quietly close the rest. This takes various guises and has
various names. These include "survivor bias" and "promote the winners."
If I stuck 10,000 monkeys in a stadium and had each flip a coin ten
times, about ten of those monkeys would get ten heads in a row. Would
you consider the names of those ten or so star monkeys newsworthy? Would
you write a column documenting their amazing accomplishment? If not, why
are you reporting on the few hedge funds that "won bets they made
against financial companies and lower-rated slices of debt" or the lucky
funds that are "scoring from big moves in oil, gold, currencies and
emerging markets." This isn't news. As with my example of 10,000
monkeys, in any given market environment, there will be a few out of the
10,000 or so hedge funds that happen to profit from that environment.
This is the law of large numbers. It applies to monkeys as well as hedge
funds. It is irrelevant.
Gregory, pension fund, endowment and
foundation trustees rely on you to inform their investment decisions.
Those decisions will impact millions of retirees and students, not to
mention the thousands of charities that depend on foundation money. You
have a profound responsibility to this multitude. Try to do better.
Glyn A. Holton
|
|